Sheriff’s department refuses to name deputy who shot and killed an innocent Pico Rivera man

PICO RIVERA >> The Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department Tuesday declined to release the name of the deputy who shot and killed Frank Mendoza, an innocent man, earlier this month.

In an email sheriff’s officials cited safety reasons for the decision. The killing occurred when Mendoza, 54, was mistaken for wanted parolee Cedric Ramirez, 24, and was shot in the forehead and right leg.

“We are currently investigating specific, credible threats against the deputies involved in that incident, and the release of their names would jeopardize their safety, and the safety of their families,” wrote Capt. Duane J. Harris, of the homicide bureau.

The correspondence also indicated that the denial is following exemptions under the state’s government code 6254 (c) (f) and 6255.

The codes used by the sheriff’s department to deny the Public Records Act request, note that releasing the names of the deputies, “constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” regarding personnel files; and secondly, “disclosure of a particular item of information would endanger the safety of a person involved in an investigation or would endanger the successful completion of the investigation or a related investigation.”

Sheriff’s officials also claimed, using the government code, that the deputies’ safety outweighs the public’s need to know their names.

“It’s a balancing act,” said Peter Bibring, director of police practices for the ACLU-Los Angeles. “There is privacy in employment records, and the public has a right know who is engaged in misconduct.”

But, he said, the state Supreme Court decision earlier this year in the Long Beach Police Officers Association v. City of Long Beach case, addressed the employment records issue.

“They said it’s an insufficient reason,” Bibring said.

In a 6-1 decision, the state Supreme Court rejected the arguments of the Long Beach police union, concluding there is a presumption that the public has a right to know the identities of officers involved in shooting incidents.

While the justices indicated there may be circumstances that would permit keeping the information secret, particularly if an officer’s safety might be jeopardized, departments do not have a sweeping right to withhold the officers’ identities in the aftermath of shootings, Bibring said.

Advertisement

“Officers are required to identify themselves to the public, as well as open court,” Bibring said. “Surely in this context, IDing an officer, public concern is justified.”

The Supreme Court made it clear there might be situations where police departments can make a strong showing that the reasons for keeping the information under wraps outweigh the public’s right to know the identities of the officers.

“Understandable are the general safety concerns of officers who fear retaliation from angry members of the community after an officer-involved shooting, especially when the shooting results in the death of an unarmed person,” the court wrote. “But the Legislature ... has not gone so far as to protect the names of all officers involved in such shootings.”